Srecko Sostar

There's a difference between judging someone's personal choice and what they say. If you say something in a public forum then expect it to be challenged. If you're not looking for response then why are you sharing? I don't care what choices you make. Your life is yours. I do hope you have a good life though. I do care about people.
When I share it is to share. If someone challenges what I share it gives everyone watching an opportunity to learn and grow, and me in particular.

The society teaches of Adam: There was a body formed of dust from the ground. There was breath of life. But only when breath of life was breathed into the body formed from dust of the ground was there man. That man was Adam. The moment breath of life left that body "the man" ceased.
That is what the society teaches of man, and of animal.
But not with blood. With blood suddenly we have pieces that can be artificially isolated remaining "the thing" they were once associated with. I have news for everyone. If all we had in your circulatory system was red cells we'd all be dead because we would not have blood. Blood is a composition of many things, none of which by themselves are blood.
Red cells are no more blood than hydrogen is water.

Blood is so easy to fraction. Modern medicine did not start that. Modern medicine just found ways to artificially fractionate blood, ways that don't exist in nature.
Otherwise what you wrote is not so much as an artful attempt to respond to the questions posed to you. More like a Kamala word salad.
You wrote:
So, I brought up a 1/100 fraction (white cells of your circulating blood) and asked you about it. Suddenly crickets.

 

A teaching could be wrong because it's unsound.
A teaching could be wrong because it's false.
Though both are wrong, the latter would be more wrong than the former.

I/2 is a fraction. Right? Is 1/2 the parts that constitute "soul" soul?
Oh, and cryosupernatant is, as a fraction, MORE than 1/2 the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is cryosupernatant "blood"?
Oh, and white cells are, as a fraction, about 1/100 of the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is white cells "blood"?

We don't need to worry about that.
Each person will render an account to God for what they did or didn't do, or say or didn't say. Romans 14:12.
 

The society holds disparate teachings when it comes to parts versus a whole. (Flour, milk, etc versus cake)
Regarding soul (life), it's said to have two major components; a body and breathe of life.
Together a body and breathe of life IS "soul".
Apart NEITHER a body nor breathe of life IS "soul".
Regarding blood, it's said to have four major components; red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.
Together red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma IS "blood".
Apart red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma EACH IS "blood".
The irony of these two disparate treatments of parts versus whole is that the society also teaches that blood is considered to be equivalent to life (soul). Yet it treats what makes up the two disparately.
There is no person inside the big house who's ever even attempted to answer for the contradictory bit of teaching.

At one time I held a similar view. But, unlike you, when pressed to defend my position I found it impossible without invoking provisions of Mosaic law, which was a law that never applied to anyone other than either natural born Jews or individuals who for their own reasons decided to convert to Judaism. But aside from natural born Jews, God never required anyone else to submit to provisions of that law and, to the contrary, the whole time He was accepting worship of persons outside Judaism who feared him and worked righteousness. Hence what James presents I can see only through the lens of standards predating Mosaic law that would have applied to everyone. There is no standard predating Mosaic law remotely suggesting the substance of blood should be treated as a sacred substance. Just think about that carefully, especially in regard to what was said to Noah. There is, for instance, no pre-Mosaic law standard suggesting it would have been wrong to transplant blood for medicinal purposes to either treat or prevent a health condition, and even in ancient times blood was useful for both and was used for both.

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

ummmm … two dimensional?
 

I agree that blood is not in the context at all. But this was also my point. If abstaining from unbled meat was so important for a Gentile to learn about when it came to matters of conscience, then why wouldn't Paul make the reminder? Especially here, when he uses the same exact term for "meat sacrificed to an idol" that the Jerusalem congregation used (Acts 15 and Acts 21).
Paul said, don't abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].
James said, abstain from εἰδωλοθύτων [meat sacrificed to an idol].
Paul took the point to an extra degree by saying to eat anything an unbeliever might set before asking NO questions about it.
If it was so important to follow the Acts 15 decree for all time --even when not in the presence of  "Mosaic Christians" like James, Peter and John-- then there would have been at least two additional important questions to ask about it: 1) Was it correctly bled? 2) Was the animal strangled?

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

He is not the only religious leader who supports nonsense.

Quote from article:
In response to concerns over the scope of the project, the applicant has proposed building heights up to 75 feet in exchange for designating half the acreage as open space. The proposed MU3 district allows for building heights up to 45 feet. The applicant said that because of the topography, 75 feet buildings would appear smaller than the 45-foot buildings.
Indeed this building on the right looks lower than the one on the left.
 
 

Yes. Every religious institution is guilty of something.

I should find a good and accurate newspaper article that conveys their decision and explains this move by the Church.

I. Blessing in the sacrament of marriage
4. The recent response of the Holy Father Francis to the second of the five questions posed by the two cardinals[4] offers the possibility of further consideration of the question, especially in its pastoral implications. It is about avoiding "recognizing as marriage something that it is not".[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that can create confusion between what is contrary to marriage and what is fundamental to marriage as "an exclusive, permanent and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the birth of children" are inadmissible.[6] This belief is based on the timeless Catholic teaching on marriage. It is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, appropriate and completely human meaning. Church teaching on this matter remains constant.
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that we find in the Gospel. Therefore, regarding the blessing, the Church has the right and duty to avoid any type of ceremony that could contradict this belief or lead to any confusion. This is also the meaning of the Responsum of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the authority to bless same-sex unions.
6. It should be emphasized that when the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, it is not about any kind of blessing, but about a gesture that is reserved for an ordained minister. In this case, the blessing of the ordained minister is directly related to the concrete union of a man and a woman who, with their consent, establish a permanent and indissoluble union. This allows us to better emphasize the risk of mixing the blessing, given to any other union, with the rite of the sacrament of marriage.
https://www.bitno.net/vijesti/vatikan/fiducia-supplicans-evo-sto-pise-u-dokumentu-koji-spominje-blagoslov-parova-u-neredovitim-situacijama/

Half an hour ago in the central TV daily they said that the Pope blesses persons and not their relationship.

I am inclined to believe all you have stated, and more.  Like I mentioned before, it might have been a good idea for someone to check Aaron’s tent for some leftover golden calf gold.
Of course, studies suggest alternate explanations ….
U.S. - A new study released by LifeWay Research confirmed what everyone knew all along: beard length is directly connected to preaching ability.
"Throughout church history, the ones with long, flowing beards could preach sermons that would shake the gates of hell," said head researcher Dr. Jonathan "The Spurge" Pendleton, who happens to have a long, flowing beard himself. "The bald-faced ones are the heretics."
Presbyterian and Reformed ministers across the country agreed with the findings, saying it was a self-evident truth that God has revealed in the hearts of all men. "Only the depraved suppress this truth as they listen to their peach-fuzzed, wanna be pastors," said Charles J. Finklestein, an OPC minister in Philadelphia, as he stroked his 3-foot-long beard. "May they receive the condemnation they are due."
The study obviously found that women can't preach at all from a podium.


And in another study :
ORANGE COUNTY, NY - A study of over 2,000 non-JW bearded men found a "strong correlation" between a thick, bushy growth of facial hair and uncanny supernatural abilities such as flight, powerful regenerative abilities, heat vision, and enhanced strength, researchers at the Jehovah’s Witnesses Warwick World Headquarters announced Monday.
"Besides the obvious benefits like a manly look, warmth in the winter, and enhanced preaching and teaching skills, beards seem to grant the owner any number of enhanced capabilities," a Governing Body Helper told reporters Monday. "We witnessed one caged disfellowshipped JW  who grew a beard, and after it breached a length of one inch, could morph back and forth from an overweight  two dimensional cartoon dog, and was instantly gifted with the ability to run away at the speed of sound."
"It seems the obvious choice for any man is to grow a beard. We really don't see any reason why you wouldn't."
Wayward Pioneer Brothers returning from vacations who had  beards were observed slaughtering their foes by generating and hurling searing hot orbs of fire, or freezing enemies to death with deadly cold-breath abilities.
According to the full results of the study, available at Warwick Bethel website:   JW.org/donations/accounts/internal_audits/lawyers/ bankruptcy/beards, , subjects who shaved their beards immediately lost their powers, and "also looked really childish and dumb."
(Edited for clarity and readability)

That’s why I sell Pudgycoin, in a ten pound box! 
Perhaps you could sell your books by weight?
 

Did you know that at an intersection with 4-way stop signs, where two cars arrive at the same time, the man with the larger beard has the right-of-way ?

All of that nonsense is why I cannot attribute common sense honest motives to the new “beards ok” change.
It’ somehow has to be motivated by money.

Who is dividing the JWs? This is done by GB members.
A GB member, like Geoffrey Jackson, says: JWs know for themselves by reading their own Bibles if the GB instructions are wrong and decide that GB is giving bad instructions and will not obey them.
Another GB member, like Steven Lett, says: You must not think and feel that you were right when you followed the advice and instruction of my colleague Geoffrey Jackson who allowed you to object and express your dissatisfaction with the instructions that were wrong.